5 ms·

It is highly variable. I don't know anything about child pornography law, but I can safely assume that it was written at a time that could not anticipate the pr

It is highly variable. I don't know anything about child pornography law, but I can safely assume that it was written at a time that could not anticipate the production of content by teenagers themselves. I clearly think that the cases listed are absurd. It is the Supreme Court's correct role to recast or reinterpret laws -- if necessary -- given recent applications.

axod 17y ago
>> "at a time that could not anticipate the production of content by teenagers themselves." At what point in the history of the universe did teenagers and kids not naturally play around with each other :/
- maxwell 17y ago
  Never, but they didn't commonly transmit evidence of it before the last decade.
  - sophacles 17y ago
    Well, other than the occasional pregnancy. :P It does bring up the question: did anyone ever get prosecuted for underage sex based on a pregnancy? I mean, there isn't much better evidence of said sex...
    - pyre 17y ago
      Even in cases where the law states that it's illegal for a 18yo to have sex with a 17yo, it's still up to the prosecutor to be sane about it. That doesn't always happen. When the girl is pregnant, she still has to give up the father for them to know who to prosecute (traditionally the boy is prosecuted in these cases; sometimes they go for the girl if she is the older one, but if she is pregnant they may view her as the 'victim'). I guess she may give that information up when declaring who the father is to the hospital though, so I don't know. Maybe it just depends on how vindictive the parents are.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  The key word there is content. It has only been in the past half-decade that tens of millions of children have had ready access to the means to produce and distribute pornography of themselves. The law enshrines certain assumptions that are no longer true due to the proliferation of technology. Undoubtedly that will be an increasingly common occurrence.
  - extension 17y ago
    We've had cameras for centuries and home movies for a couple of generations but until recently, the act of recording something was seen as deliberate and permanent. Now, photos and videos are a part of our day to day lives, an extension of our own thoughts and social interactions. That change is colliding with the historical concept of producing media for consumption (it's also colliding with technical reality, but that's a whole other issue). The conflict arises not simply from the availability of technology but from the level of intimacy we have with it.
    - gnaritas 17y ago
      Adults have had those things, it's only recently that it's become common for children to own them as well.
      - billswift 17y ago
        If recently you mean 30+ years ago. Many teens had (cheap) cameras in the later 1970s. Some even Polaroid cameras that didn't need processing.
        gnaritas 17y ago
        If by many you mean a very small minority then sure, it was hardly common for kids to have cameras; today nearly every teen has one in their phone.

axod 17y ago

>> "at a time that could not anticipate the production of content by teenagers themselves." At what point in the history of the universe did teenagers and kids not naturally play around with each other :/

maxwell 17y ago
Never, but they didn't commonly transmit evidence of it before the last decade.
- sophacles 17y ago
  Well, other than the occasional pregnancy. :P It does bring up the question: did anyone ever get prosecuted for underage sex based on a pregnancy? I mean, there isn't much better evidence of said sex...
  - pyre 17y ago
    Even in cases where the law states that it's illegal for a 18yo to have sex with a 17yo, it's still up to the prosecutor to be sane about it. That doesn't always happen. When the girl is pregnant, she still has to give up the father for them to know who to prosecute (traditionally the boy is prosecuted in these cases; sometimes they go for the girl if she is the older one, but if she is pregnant they may view her as the 'victim'). I guess she may give that information up when declaring who the father is to the hospital though, so I don't know. Maybe it just depends on how vindictive the parents are.
GHFigs 17y ago
The key word there is content. It has only been in the past half-decade that tens of millions of children have had ready access to the means to produce and distribute pornography of themselves. The law enshrines certain assumptions that are no longer true due to the proliferation of technology. Undoubtedly that will be an increasingly common occurrence.
- extension 17y ago
  We've had cameras for centuries and home movies for a couple of generations but until recently, the act of recording something was seen as deliberate and permanent. Now, photos and videos are a part of our day to day lives, an extension of our own thoughts and social interactions. That change is colliding with the historical concept of producing media for consumption (it's also colliding with technical reality, but that's a whole other issue). The conflict arises not simply from the availability of technology but from the level of intimacy we have with it.
  - gnaritas 17y ago
    Adults have had those things, it's only recently that it's become common for children to own them as well.
    - billswift 17y ago
      If recently you mean 30+ years ago. Many teens had (cheap) cameras in the later 1970s. Some even Polaroid cameras that didn't need processing.
      - gnaritas 17y ago
        If by many you mean a very small minority then sure, it was hardly common for kids to have cameras; today nearly every teen has one in their phone.